Men: stand up for yourselves and we WILL hate you. The new feminist war cry!

Okay, this is going to be a long one, but it’s an important one that needs to be taken apart. Let’s all hold hands and pray that Lindy West learns to be a little more concise in the future, but for now, we just gotta wade through the sewage filled swamp of her mind.

Ready? As always, Lindy is in italics.

If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Lindy West

Okay, so maybe you are a man. Maybe you haven’t had the easiest ride in life—maybe you grew up in poverty; you’ve experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody (or multiple somebodies) pulverized your heart, or maybe you’ve never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you’re just unhappy and you don’t know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.

Maybe? Maybe you haven’t had the easiest life? Maybe you grew up in poverty? Maybe you’ve experienced death, neglect, despair?

Almost certainly. That is the fucking reality for almost everybody alive. The vast majority of men and women, even in the wealthiest countries on the planet are a mass of disposable humanity.

#clueless

#whiteladyproblems

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010

That top 1% of the population, comprised of both men and women? Yeah, that’s the ruling elite. Power and wealth and control is concentrated in the top, and the rest scrape by the best they can. The traditional word for that sort of social organization is aristocracy.

Patriarchy and aristocracy are not the same thing. One is rule by men. The other is rule by elite. Try to keep them straight.

However.

Here goes the hamster.

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of “misandry.” You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

Quaking in your boots a bit, Lindy? You should be. Declaring openly that you hate an entire group of individuals for daring to speak is a dangerous precedent to set. The fact that you are starting to hate men (and women) for noting that there are actually are systemic forces that discriminate against men in favor of women is really just expressing that you fear them.

You should.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of “misandry!” from men and replies of “misandry isn’t real” from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow “conversation” built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let’s unpack it. I promise not to yell.

Oh, but that’s the problem, isn’t it? We won’t throw up our hands and bolt. We’re here, and we intend to speak, and calling what we have to say “fruitless turd-pong” may satisfy some deeply immature, let’s chuck rocks at boys resentment down in the depths of your sour little heart, but it still won’t make us bolt.

[Yeah, you can buy this shirt on Amazon. Keep calm and rape her shirts? Unacceptable. Throw rocks at boys? Okie-dokie. Nope, no misandry here. Move along. Nothing to see.]

Part One: Why Feminism Has “Fem” in the Name, or, Why Can’t We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a “humanist.” Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

We don’t live in a magical world where all humans are born on an equal footing. We live in a democracy where all humans have equal (theoretically) access to the power to control the state through the power of the vote, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Both men and women have the power to vote.

The single greatest influence on how successful (or not) a person will be in their lifetime is how successful (or not) their parents are.

That is true for BOTH men and women. There’s that aristocracy problem rearing its ugly little head again. Addressing the concentration of wealth and the restrictions on social mobility in what is supposed to be a meritocracy requires us to focus on human rights, and not just women’s rights.

Because those things affect humans, and not just women.

Unfortunately, the reason that “fem” is a part of the word “feminism” is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can’t make problems disappear just by changing “feminism” to “humanism” and declaring the world healed. That won’t work.

Nope. It won’t. But by using the term “humanism”, you explicitly acknowledge that the world isn’t an equal, safe or just place for some humans, who happen to be both men and women, and that the problems of ALL those individuals matter. Not just the women.

Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything.

If Fleetches are men and Flootches are women, then they are not functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence.

Stronger, smarter, more willing to take risks and occupied in technologically sophisticated pursuits. That is why the Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. Because they are qualified to do so.

I’m just going to cut the rest of Lindy’s stupid metaphor because there is no point pursuing an argument that is based on the idea that men and women are functionally identical. They’re not and no amount of screaming at the heavens is going to change that.

It’s a nice example of the contradictory logic of feminism: let’s observe that men are better than women in lots of ways, and then insist that there is some imaginary force that keeps women from being equal to men. As opposed to assuming that women are different from men and that our skills and abilities and contributions are equally valuable. Men set the bar at heights they can reach, and when women can’t quite reach that high, the bar gets lowered because equality? Reining in male accomplishment just so women can feel “equal” is stupid. It denies that women have a very specific contribution to make and it slows down our entire trajectory of progress and innovation.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn’t Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men (people like you) are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

It’s fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that’s where we’re at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

By others, we assume Lindy means women? Because choosing a college major is usually done with a gun to your head? The entire school system is rigged to benefit girls, specifically, and women enroll in college in much greater numbers than men, but they take utterly fucking useless degrees that confer no skills other than the ability to perpetually imagine oneself a victim in need of succor.

The demonization of little boys in the school system and the utter failure of society to address the needs of boys as they proceed through a system designed to benefit girls is an excellent example of sexism. You want to talk about being left behind through no fault of your own? Let’s talk little boys in public education.

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It’s not misandry, it’s mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

I’m assuming that by “disenfranchised, Lindy means “downtrodden” and not “denied the right to vote”, but she opens a nice little can of revealing worms. Turns out there is a large group of people who are, in fact, disenfranchised: felons.

Yeah, no systemic problem here, and certainly not one that results in disenfranchisement.

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive.

One of the unreasonable expectations, apparently, is to have intact genitals and to be protected from mutilation, just like girls are.

There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don’t have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it’s worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in—especially when you also feel like you’re being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you’ve never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

Deeply wounded women who openly hate men? Let’s offer the poor ducks some support, shall we? Create a safe space where they can express their rage and anger and sense of helplessness.

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don’t have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Why do men control the reins of power over political and economic structures? Because women don’t want them! When women DO express political ambition, they are MORE likely to be elected than their male counterparts.

There is absolutely zero systemic bias against women in political power. Women are not elected to the senate and the congress and the Oval Office because they DO NOT RUN FOR THOSE OFFICES.

The same is true for the “glass ceiling”. Women do not run the corporations or organizations of the world because, for the most part, THEY AREN’T INTERESTED. In Australia, women who DO reach the top of the corporate ladder have almost universally suffered some deep trauma in their childhood, and their career ambitions are a reaction to that trauma.

Maybe you’re saying, “Hey, but my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle.” I know it wasn’t. I know you have. But that’s not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be “fair” for everyone—you’re slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn’t fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Oh, preach it, sister! That’s exactly right!

Oh wait. You mean only when life is additionally unfair to women.

Oops, my bad.

Feminism isn’t about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it’s about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women’s basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field.

Agreed. And when men and women DO have equal potential in a field, they DO have an equal opportunity for success. Provided they work the same hours, acquire the same advanced training, dedicate the same resources, men and women achieve at equal measures of success.

Let’s look at medicine, for example. Women are now enrolled in medical school in equal numbers to men.

And what do they do with their qualifications? They decline advanced specializations and work as family physicians, mostly part time. Basically, they write prescriptions for painkillers and antibiotics and as soon as a perplexing problem crops up, they refer it on to a specialist man.

That’s why female doctors make less money than male ones: they work fewer hours in less technically qualified specializations.

It’s not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they’re women. It’s that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn’t sexism. But she shouldn’t have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

That’s not sexism. It’s biology. And evolution. Women prefer caretaking jobs. They are naturally more nurturing than men. They have been designed by nature to be so.

Men’s greater abilities at spatial orientation and women’s greater abilities at speech and communication are present at birth. There is no socialization aspect involved. It’s simple biology.

Part Four: A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Let’s go all the way back to this:

In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you.

The entire point of this article is that there is NO genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men.

Now watch the hamster dance.

The next section claims exactly the opposite: there IS a genuine, systemic, oppressive force working against men, and that force is the PATRIARCHY! And what is the greatest foe of the PATRIARCHY? Why, that would be FEMINISM, of course.

So all you men who are NOT oppressed by any genuine, systemic force working against men, except all of you who ARE oppressed by a genuine, systemic force, come and join hands with FEMINISM.

We’re here to rescue you. Let’s see what that rescue will look like.

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Widespread feminist support of single mother families and the insistence that the state offer generous benefits to single mothers is BY DEFINITION denying men custody of their children. If men were custodial parents, either solely, or in unison with the child’s mother SHE WOULDN’T BE A SINGLE MOTHER.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, like ads that portray domestic violence as being something only men do to women. The assumption that men are violent and women are victims is totally understandable, right?

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

But they will rail against divorce lawyers who specialize in making sure that men get treated fairly in divorce proceedings.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

They do, however, support the right of women to claim state benefits on the basis of rape without actually having to prove the accusation. There should be an automatic assumption of guilt. Against the man, of course.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Except for all the nice guys on OKCupid. Those guys suck and are worth hating.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

But we fully expect you to offer to pay for dinner. That’s just being a gentleman. It’s up to us to decide how the check gets split, if at all. The person who proposes the date should be the one who pays. And who is required to propose the date? Oh yeah. That would be men.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

But don’t ask us to lift any heavy bags when we’re pregnant, even if that is part of our job. That’s not fair! Get some guy to do it for us!

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Unless you’re a white man, of course. In that case, your depression is definitely worth mocking and deriding and ignoring.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

But they will question your masculinity and declare a “creepy” factor should you happen to like My Little Pony.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Except for all those times when women were naturally gentle and compliant and forgot to tell someone they were actually being raped.

Probably the most ridiculous account of “rape” you will ever read. But it WAS rape, because gentle and compliant by nature, dontcha know?

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

I’ll just quote from the opening paragraph:

— we are starting to hate you. You, the person.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking men’s rights activists, because the men’s human rights movement is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame men —your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting women isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting men. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Part Five: I’m Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women

It’s not easy to swallow your own privilege—to admit that you’re a Fleetch—but once you do, it’s addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It’s something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it’s right. That doesn’t make me (or you) a bad person—it makes me an extremely lucky person who was born into a white body in a great family in a vibrant, liberal city in a powerful, wealthy country that implicitly values white bodies over all other bodies. The least I can do is acknowledge the arbitrariness of that luck, and work to tear down the obstacles facing those who are disenfranchised by the insidious fetishization of whiteness. Blanket defensiveness isn’t going to get any of us anywhere.

Work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory.

Exactly, Lindy.

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry”: I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we’re valued, like we deserve to exist. And I’m sorry if you haven’t found that so far in your life. But it’s not women’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s certainly not feminism’s fault. The thing is, you’re not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately in these comment threads—the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they’re the villains. It’s better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we’ll start liking you a whole lot more.

Nice try at sucking up, Lindy.

Newsflash, bitch: I don’t give a fuck whether you like me or not, and neither does anyone else fighting for men’s basic human rights. Because human rights are a goal worth pursuing whether you benefit directly from them or not. And if you are human, then guess what? YOU DO!

The fact that you even wrote this article means that the voices are beginning to penetrate. You hear us. And you’re afraid.

Oh my god. I love you. You are the absolute best. I want to make pamphlets of this post and spread them everywhere. You are the epitome of logical, rational, arguments backed up by sound science. Your blog needs to be bigger than that “jezebel” crap. They are knee-jerk emotional cripples who are tearing society apart with their proclamations. Women like that make me ashamed… I had to convince my husband NOT to have our son circumsised. How’s that for crazy? I want to make a shirt that says “Girls are dumb. Pull their hair,” sell it on Amazon, and see how quick feminazis line up to scream sexism!!! Double standards abound. But the hamster is blind, and the hamster runs furiously… taking down the men, children, and families that make the world worth living in.

BG7B

Also, women, if you want to be so darn equal? Give men 50% custody automatically, and refuse any child support. Yeah, I’m sure THAT will happen. Oh wait, when my husband and I divorced, that is exactly what I did. Not so hard, actually, much better than the crap I see men battling on a constant basis. My fiance has 3 kids- he has full custody of the older two, they have a deadbeat MOM that is so behind in child support, it is in 5 digits. His third child’s mom takes all his money and barely lets him see the kid, unless it’s on her terms, and is extremely hostile to him and me, and coddles their son so much. It makes me absolutely sick.

I feel like the manosphere is a giant steamroller thats going to flatten out a ton of issues in our society. Feminism is the retard in Austin Powers standing in the way for an eternity, doing nothing but yelling ‘Stop!’ Itll eventually be crushed because it simply won’t move out of the way.

And ar this point, I’m glad for it. Feminism has messed up so many issues it deserves to go down with the problems

“I feel like the manosphere is a giant steamroller thats going to flatten out a ton of issues in our society.”

As much as I would love that, I think this is a view that comes from being too caught up in the middle of the manosphere. A movement for change such as you are referencing is not going to happen without a crisis moment. I posted my thoughts on this exact question a few days ago:

Dalrock’s been quoted in NYT. Captain Capitalism (who does have his full name revealed and does have a podcast) has been interviewed by the papers. Both in the last week. Girlwriteswhat does speaking and lectures by invitation at colleges, though currently doesn’t give her name out. And Roosh is constantly getting interviews or articles or news spots done on him on an international level.

They may not be named by anyone specifically, but the thoughts are getting out there and the links between thoughts are being made. I wouldn’t be surprised if your post is right, in that the ‘sphere will never be “mainstream”. But I would assert that this will let us hammer out tough truths and refine them from wild ideas that will then hit the mainstream at a later time.

And I’m ok with that.

Also, as someone who blogs with his first name, isn’t shy about my profession or the city I live in, and talks with people I interact with about it…. The thoughts make sense to most men. Not all the thoughts, but you’ll get head nods from most men about the big issues of divorce, obesity, sexism, rape allegations, feminization of work/religion/government, and all our entitlement spending. You get more nods the closer to blue collar work the men are, or the closer they are to someone that’s been taken to divorce courts. I’ve also worked on plays that take on some of these issues, and seen or read others that do as well. They’ve been there for decades, as seen by some of David Mamet’s work. They’re not as popular or as numerous as feminist plays, but they’re out there and get the attention of those looking for a raw, ‘edgier’ and truthful story. You can find other forms of media and art that do the same, if you know where to look.

Sherlock

Mike Buchanan is all over BBC these days. THe redpillschool guy was also on BBC recently. Pelle Billing of pellebilling.com has been on numerous TV-debates in sweden (he is a gentle MRA). Susan Walsh will become huge in the mainstream and so will Athol eventually and Ian Ironwood. Theprivateman can certainly become mainstream. Therulesrevisited is very poppular amongst girls and he communicates the ideas of the sphere in a non offensive way that girls with some openness to the red pill are able to take in. Dalrock might not hit societies mainstream but he will hit the christian conservative mainstream. He is no more hard to digest than most preachers 60 years ago or most conservative clerics in more conservative countries. There is nothing inherently offensive about it from a conservative religious perspective.

Sherlock

This guy is also getting interviewed a lot by MSM in Finland. We are slowly starting to get a place at the debate table:

Thanks, I forgot about those as they’re not one’s that I read besides Ian occasionally.

Sherlock

BrianC at the wildmanproject can also easily go mainstream. He communicates very well in a non offensive manner. Actually he recently got his own tv-show. His blog as almost no commenters though so we should help him along.

Cadders

Also, ‘Coronation Street’, just about the biggest soap opera on UK TV has recently been running a highly charged story line about an innocent man suffering an abusive relationship and how the abusive woman manipulates others, the law, and the courts to strip him of his freedom, child and dignity.

This show typically has an audience of around 13 million, the majority women.

I don’t think story line this would have seen the light of day a few years ago.

This is the red pill in pain sight. This is the effect of the MRAs / manosphere. And it is only gaining more and more traction.

This is why the Fems are starting to fear. They are losing control of the narrative. And the narrative is all they ever really had, wasn’t it?

Ams

‘Coronation Street’ – met Mark Brooks yesterday, chairman of Mankind.org.uk (Fathers Need Families meeting) & he mentioned that they had been in consultation for 2 years over the soap’s storyline.
I don’t watch much tv, but in reality too few good guys win, hopefully changing?

Do you ever wonder how patriarchy is simultaneously something that serves men at the expense of women, but at the same time “hurts men too”, and all those overwhelming issues men complain about are really due to patriarchy?

Retrenched

It’s straight from the leftist political playbook — blame your enemies for the problems you cause. Never be seen as being “in charge”, and then you won’t be held responsible for the destruction your policies cause. Because you’re a “revolutionary” and you’re fighting to bring about utopia, so nothing you do can ever be wrong. Anything that’s bad must always be the fault of someone else, but not you, because you’re a ‘revolutionary” working to create utopia.

Keynsians blame the free market for problems caused by state intervention.

Democratic presidents, mayors and governors blame corporations for economic problems caused by the high taxes and onerous regulations they implement.

See a pattern here?

LJBiFed!

“It’s straight from the leftist political playbook — blame your enemies for the problems you cause. Never be seen as being “in charge”, and then you won’t be held responsible for the destruction your policies cause. ……. See a pattern here?”

Yes I do. Slacker parents blaming teachers, the system, feminism, etc, etc, etc, for their own lack of investing time, money and energy into their childrens’ education.

zykos

“Comrades, I know you are hungry and tired, and believe me, we understand you. But your problems stem not from the Party, but from Imperialism! And the Party wants the best for you. We do not want our glorious country to suffer economic stagnation. We do not want you to live in fear of random arrests. We do not want you to leave. So please, join us once more so we continue our ongoing fight!”

I’m sure some communist somewhere around 1989 had something similar to say. It’s either naive hypocrisy to think someone will be fooled by that, or ideological blindness. Or maybe, as you suggested, simply the last attempt of someone who is very, very afraid.

LJBiFed!

“The Fleetches are more likely to be of higher intelligence.”

— And lower.

“The Fleetches have a greater tendency to take risks and pursue rewards.

The Fleetches tend to cluster in occupations that invent, create and deliver tangible technologies and tools that collectively drive our entire society forward.

Stronger, smarter, more willing to take risks and occupied in technologically sophisticated pursuits. That is why the Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. Because they are qualified to do so.”

But all that goes against your argument then, doesn’t it? If all of the above is true, that men are all that a bag of chips AND ALSO “in charge of pretty much everything”, then there really is no systemic misandry.

Having political or economic power is not the same thing as having privilege nor does it remotely entail being immune from discrimination. Case in point, Jews were disproportionately powerful (in terms of holding office) and wealthy in most of the European countries in the early 20th century, even midst of the programs and on the eve of the Holocaust.

The military elite of the Ottoman Empire were the famous Christian Janissary troops, and many of the elite officials were Jews; now would you seriously tell me that this is evidence that Christians and Jews were not victims of discrimination in the Turkish Empire? Because if so, you would be wrong.

And the fact is men don’t control everything. Not remotely. Women control the educations system. Women dominate most American families. They control 2/3 of the disposable income. They have on average more leisure time than men, which means that they watch more TV than men and ‘consume more media than men; this means that even though me “control” the boards of directors of the big companies, they are in reality merely the well-compensated servants of a primarily female class of consumers.

What power do men have then? Oh, we have the House, the Senate, and the Presidency……. all of which were elected primarily by women (women vote at a higher rate than men; the margin is, i believe, as high as 55-45).

Men are not in charge of everything. Not even close. All male power, all of it, is conspicuous power. Women (proof perhaps that they are smarter than us) on the other hand keep their power as behind the scenes as possible. Truth is, to the extent that patriarchy exists in the west today, it is because women asked for or demanded it.

Yup, Im sure all those transexuals are just nice guys* trying to get into the women’s bathrooms to see their genitals.

LJBiFed!

Transexuals can have their own spaces to discuss issues pertinent to them and their experiences as trans-women. Biological women have our own experiences and we like to have our own spaces to discuss them. But when a biological man insists on invading that space because he “psychologically identifies” as a woman, well… there are spaces already for him-her.

Some mens’ groups also don’t want biological women who “identify as men” to insist on invading those mens’ groups.

There is such a thing as private and free association.

BG7B

You mean “separate but equal?” Like what we used to do for black people? Since whites didn’t want them in their space? And pray tell, what spaces are you talking about?

LJBiFed!

No. Separate but equal was about PUBLIC spaces. Spaces that ones very survival and the survival of their offspring depended upon.

I am solely referring here to private and free association.

You may be shocked to learn that there are free, private black associations where black people get together and discuss issues pertinent to their communities and cultures where white people do not show up and if they do, may be met with a curious eye or a cold shoulder.

And that’s today in 2013 and I’m all for it.

Free association.

3legdog

Of course blacks can get away with their “private association” clubs. They are SWPL. But just try and have a “white male only” org and see how vilified you get. (See private golf courses, etc.)

LJBiFed!

3legdog, of course whites can “get away with it”, and they do. And neither do these black groups I’m speaking of advertise as “black only”. Its just that the group meetings discuss issues that are pertinent to their community. There’s no “whites not allowed” sign on the door.

Its like the Irish-American, or Italian-American, or Greek-American associations, etc, etc, etc, here in the States.

Sherlock

The MRAs greater openness to transgroups is going to be a public relations disaster for feminism and a huge way for MRAs to gain legitimacy. Thanks for giving us that one. It`s kind of a freebie win.

LJBiFed!

“The MRAs greater openness to transgroups is going to be a public relations disaster for feminism and a huge way for MRAs to gain legitimacy. Thanks for giving us that one. It`s kind of a freebie win.”

You’re more than welcome to it.

I’m neither a Feminist nor an MRA.

Neither is the LGBT cause my personal mission.

BG7B

You are definitely reaching here. You cannot in one breath agree that transgendered people need to be protected and fought for like women, but wait, except male transexuals, because they FAKE IT to get into the thick of feminism to bring it down! Yeah, ok, maybe a couple men would do that? Maybe? I personally know a few transgendered males, and it is a horrible position to be in, a male who knows he is a female. I can’t imagine someone choosing it for nefarious purposes.

LJBiFed!

“You are definitely reaching here. You cannot in one breath agree that transgendered people need to be protected and fought for like women”

I argued that? Where?

BG7B

You are defending the article in which she says everyone’s (which includes transexuals) rights should be stood up for, under the umbrella of feminism. But anyways, I am done with you. People who argue against common sense, logic, science, etc. for the sake of muddying the waters to defend themselves against all logic, are beneath me. Double standards are beneath me.
Even when I have been under the assumption of certain things, reading JB’s posts always opens my eyes to the truth of matters. It’s like an awakening, I can feel myself becoming smarter. I can almost imagine how it is to try and scramble for footing against logic and rationality- but I would rather not. Unfortunately, that is most people.

LJBiFed!

“You are defending the article in which she says everyone’s (which includes transexuals) rights should be stood up for, under the umbrella of feminism. ”

I didn’t even read the article, and I won’t.

I’m just saying that when it comes to biological womens’ private spaces of free association where they discuss issues pertinent to being a biological female, there have been instances where biological men who identify as women show up and its met with mixed feelings.

“There is a concern that some Transexualism is a means for biological men to gain access to all womens’ spaces such as womens’ groups.”

By “a concern,” you mean “an ignorant and delusional prejudice.”

I know one male-to-female transsexual. The idea that “he” is putting up with all this caca just so “he” can see women’s private parts in the powder room is — it’s pathetic or it’s laughable, I haven’t decided which.

But goddess forbid that a former man join a feminist discussion! Why, that’s like Obama trying to join the KKK!

Adman

“I know one male-to-female transsexual. The idea that “he” is putting up with all this caca just so “he” can see women’s private parts in the powder room is — it’s pathetic or it’s laughable…”.
Pathetically laughable. It isn’t about gender for feminists, just sex.

LJBiFed!

“I know one male-to-female transsexual. The idea that “he” is putting up with all this caca just so “he” can see women’s private parts in the powder room is — it’s pathetic or it’s laughable…”.

Who’s putting forth that idea in the first place?

“Pathetically laughable. It isn’t about gender for feminists, just sex.”

The argument against biological men who identify as women joining biological womens’ groups that are focused on issues particular to biological women isn’t based on “just sex”. The argument is that they are discussing issues that are pertinent to biological women. NOT biological men who identify as women.

I saw the article linked on FB by a friend (who I would’ve expected to have more insight!), responded quickly, and then came here, knowing I would find the full dismantling that I didn’t have the time to do. My response ended with ‘Imagine if a man told a woman that he understood she felt hard done by, but it was all in her pretty little mind, and if she just tried to appreciate that his life was so much harder than hers, he’d stop hating her so much and maybe help to fix her little problems for her. That is basically what she said there.’

BG7B

But Nicky, It’s ok for women to say because they are being systematically REPRESSED!!! Men are big bullies!!! (insert sarcasm font)

LJBiFed!

While there are certainly individuals who are misandrist, I remain unconvinced that misandry is systemic in our culture.

The Manosphere writes a lot about the “war on boys” in schools and how because girls are doing better in some areas, that somehow the educational system in rigged against boys and the whole thing is designed in such a way that it favors the way girls’ brains learn over how the way boys brains learn.

But how come East and South Asian boys are not “falling behind” in our “rigged educational system? Why is it only white, black and Hispanic boys?

The same Manosphere that says the system is rigged against boys also has a large HBD contingent who says whatever failings black and Hispanic people exhibit is due to nature, not nurture. But when white boys or men fail somehow its all about “the system”.

They also say that the way school days are designed, with ever decreasing recess and ever increasing tests, is set up to ensure the failure of boys who need more recess.

Fly on over to Asia – East or South, and you see boys perfectly capable of sitting behind desks all day and not getting recess and doing just as well, if not outperforming girls.

And my point here is that Asian-American boys, whether East (think China, Japan, Korea, etc) or South (think India), are doing not just well in the so-called “rigged” system, but they are excelling past what both boys AND girls who are white, black, Hispanic, are performing.

So then…. its NOT “the system”.
Its that American white, black and Hispanic boys are either simply not as smart as Asian kids or their family cultures do not value education and hard work in school to the same extent Asia kids do.

If one is unable to compete, whether due to nature or nuture or a combo of both, why blame the system?

I see first hand that lower and middle class white, black and Hispanic American parents do not put the emphasis on education that Asian American parents do.

Its often more important to white, black and Hispanic parents that their kids meet social milestones such as first football game, first date, first boyfriend/girlfriend, first prom, first party, first toke of a blunt, etc than it is for their kids to come home immediately after school and study.

These parents don’t want their kids to grow up to be “nerds”.

When a black kid takes his studies seriously its called, no, not “acting white” but “acting Asian”.

“Acting white” means that he does beer bongs, not ganja bongs.

But people will make any excuse to be slackers.

LJBiFed!

Re: Tests: if boys are supposed to be more competitive than girls on average by nature, then they should be excelling at tests because tests are…… drum roll….. competitive.

And guess what? American boys (who are Asian descent) ARE excelling in tests.

In case you dont know, the nature of the test has changed and has become more standarized. They are removing whatever “competition” and switching to a more homogeneous thing. Check my post about it, and stop bringing race into the issue.

LJBiFed!

“In case you dont know, the nature of the test has changed and has become more standarized. They are removing whatever “competition” and switching to a more homogeneous thing.”

Tests before or after, competitive or co-operative, this way or that, Asian American BOYS are excelling at any and all of them.

The way they are raised is a way feminists would call ‘patriarchal’ and will do their damnedest in the coming years to change the way they are raised.

Boys of other races used to do much better than they do today when compared with girls. Now girls outpace them in almost every category, largely because of the way boys are raised an educated in western cultures has been so thoroughly ‘reformed’ to give girls the edge, and the higher up the education system you go, the worse it gets.

Also, the academic success of Asians is not due entirely to their cultural differences. Part of it has to do with the fact that it is usually the wealthiest, most successful (and therefore most intelligent) Asians who are most likely to immigrate to the US; the poorer, less successful ones don’t have that opportunity. In other words, there is something of a brain drain out of Asia into the West. Simply put, Asians living in the US are not necessarily representative of Asians as a whole.

You should notice, by the way, the inconsistency of your statement: “if boys are doing well, then the system is not rigged toward girls.” Wouldn’t then stand to reason that if boys are not doing well (and they generally are not in the US) then the system is rigged against them? Now, this wouldn’t necessarily be so; as I’m not a feminist (that is, because I’m not stupid; sorry, can’t resist taking a potshot at them), I don’t assume that one group (girls) doing better than another (boys) necessarily means discrimination. But other evidence confirms that it is indeed systematic discrimination against boys in the education system. Are you familiar with Christina Hoff Sommers’s book ‘The War against Boys?’ It’s a good start for learning about this issue.

LJBiFed!

Mark:
“Also, the academic success of Asians is not due entirely to their cultural differences. Part of it has to do with the fact that it is usually the wealthiest, most successful (and therefore most intelligent) Asians who are most likely to immigrate to the US; the poorer, less successful ones don’t have that opportunity. In other words, there is something of a brain drain out of Asia into the West. Simply put, Asians living in the US are not necessarily representative of Asians as a whole.”

You say “wealthiest” but I disagree. A lot of the Asians that come here start off on the American scale of lower middle class. I’ll give just one example of many that I personally know.

Two parents working at American call centers by day scrimp and save and stack their money while pushing their daughter to excel in public school which was a breeze for her. So they work harder, take on a 3rd job between them and put her in an expensive private school and hire tutors so she will excel there.

Their apartment is almost bare bones. Used furniture and furnishings, all minimal. Cheap car. No frills.

They are working in a call center office alongside single baby mamas who barely graduated high school.

They are also saving their money to open up a restaurant.

They were by no means the “wealthiest” in their original countries and they aren’t the wealthiest here. They do not hold high degrees.

They are future time oriented and know how to plan their lives and the lives of their daughter.

They also don’t waste time on facebook, match.com or porn sites like many American parents do.

A

Uh, then let’s use that argument for every single data point that we use to judge a cohort shall we?

Women — in particular white women — are more advantaged than males when it comes to cancer deaths, suicides, overall life expectancy, overall employment, victimization of crime, of incarceration, of false incarceration, of rape (when incarceration is taken into account), of homelessness, of graduation from high school, from college, and, if she’s under 35 or so, has a higher “wage” than her male counterpart.

However, we’re always told there’s an underlying tone of misogyny in virtually ALL of those areas (health, employment, victimization of crime, and education) — and that’s used to justify virtually all gender based social programs for women, further perpetuating those gaps.

How’s about we dismantle those absurdly misandric social programs first, before you claim there doesn’t exist misandry?

LJBiFed!

So the American system is racially rigged to favor Asian-American boys over non-Asian boys and girls?

Impulsed by tons of modern psychology (feelings, no pressure, no competition) and the back of feminism (boys have to be teached to not be monsters), he education has been changing to favor / help / mold to girl´s best way of “learning” which is really “memorizing” while punishing and going away more competive and hands on ways of learning, which are better suited for boys.

Whatever happens to the asian boys on it is interesting, but incidental. Either these boys are more like girls, or can learn both ways, or are really learning at home.

LJBiFed!

“Impulsed by tons of modern psychology (feelings, no pressure, no competition) and the back of feminism (boys have to be teached to not be monsters), he education has been changing to favor / help / mold to girl´s best way of “learning” which is really “memorizing”

Girls learn better through memorization?

Committing facts and figures to memory, rote learning, are common to school systems throughout the world. Its a way of retaining data and information.

“Whatever happens to the asian boys on it is interesting, but incidental.”

Its not incidental, it reflects their family and cultural value systems.

The whole education system is now more about memorization and behaving well in class – less debate, less competition, less independence, less invention, etc. In that setup, girls do better. And your Asian boys seem to do better (if you’re right) no matter what – good for them, but this aint about race and culture, but about the education system.

LJBiFed!

“The whole education system is now more about memorization and behaving well in class”

That’s it? And people are STILL making excuses for not being able to stay afloat?!

“less debate, less competition, less independence, less invention,”

Where and when did independence and invention take center stage in K-12?

Don’t know if you’re ever even stepped foot in an American school ever in your life, but “debate” flourishes.

And by that I mean all sorts of discussions as well as debates with teachers that even end up in the teaching getting verbally or physically assaulted!

Basically all you’re offering is excuses for slackers and badly behaved kids.

“this aint about race and culture”

Oh no?

I just read a blog on Captain Capitalism’s site about how kids should NOT respect teachers. He’s a parent. And this is what he’s teaching his kid.

It may not be about race, but it sure as heck IS about culture!

Derek

Captain Capitalism is not a parent. He has multiple blog posts/youtube vids about his vasectomy/decision not to have kids. So, I’m not sure where you came up with that.

LJBiFed!

Men who get vasectomies can’t also already have kids? He is in fact a father.

LJBiFed!

“Impulsed by tons of modern psychology (feelings, no pressure, no competition) ”

No pressure and no competition and they STILL can’t manage to float in such a system?!

Then they should compete against the grades and test scores of their Asian classmates.

Liz

LJBiFed…
Have YOU flown to Asia? I taught English in the South Korean school system for a year, and in my experience (unless something has radically changed in a very short time) it was very male-centric by comparison to our system. And they definitely had recess.

Taught business courses at university in China, Liz, so I know a bit about their higher education system.

The rich kids pay others to do their work.

The pretty girls are there husband hunting.

The less than pretty girls work their asses off.

The boys are at the top of the class.

It’s a full on competition and any efforts to reduce that competitiveness are met with extreme prejudice.

LJBiFed!

“It’s a full on competition and any efforts to reduce that competitiveness are met with extreme prejudice.”

If non-Asian American boys are unable to excell in our by comparison relatively easier American system, then they would be shattered to bits in that one.

Which is my point: its not our system – its them. Since its not politically correct to hold children responsible for anything, not even their own behavior, the blame must lie in their parents (or lack thereof) and the home culture and family values system.

What is important to the parents of low-income and middle class white, black and Hispanic American parents? Examine what’s most important to them, and there you have the answers as to why their boys excel or flounder in school.

Liz

I don’t think that parenting and homelife are irrelevancies. It’s very important. I also think that our education system is not conducive towards male achievement or wellbeing. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas.

Note especially that the first link shows that feminist policy changed the way grades where given and that alone explains most of the grade gap. The study shows boys do aquire about as much knowledge and skill as girls, they are just not given the grades they deserve.

Secondly, the change in the way reading is taught made girls perform slightly less and boys perform way worse. When todays children are taught in the old way girls do a little better and boys do much, much better. So much better in fact that they outperform girls in reading.

This brings me to a related point. Girls are not doing better in school after the advent of feminism, they are doing worse. When you compare the curriculum of today with that of 50 years ago you find that students today, boys and girls alike, are several years behind in math, reading and science compared to 50 years ago. Several countries have had a TV-show where students go to school for a period in a boarding school and are taught exactly what students where taught 50 years ago and are taught with the teaching methods and requirements for discipline and with the behavioral expectations and punishments of 50 years ago. The result has consistently been that the students start to catch up fast and are amazed at how much they learn. In other words girls and boys are way behind where they where. The change in education, all brought on by feminism and be related social trends, have given horrible results in terms of learning. Just like in other areas feminism achieves its results by lowering overall performance and by cheating on behalf of girls, in this case by grade discrimination.

Sherlock

Also, asian boys are still doing relatively worse than asian girls so the asian point does not hold.

LJBiFed!

“Also, asian boys are still doing relatively worse than asian girls so the asian point does not hold.”

In which countries?
What sort of educational systems do these countries have?
If they are not like the American public school system then would the conclusion be perhaps boys in general just won’t do as well in schools as girls, instead of “these systems are rigged”.

And that still doesn’t address the fact that Asian-American boys are excelling in school, not falling behind.

LJ, the systems are rigged to a new form of education, that is not a theory. This form is measurably worse for boys than girls. Get it?

Sherlock

In the west they are doing worse than asian girls in the west.

Did you not read the links? It documents massive grade discrimination in various ways. It shows boys do about as well as women on tests not graded by their teacher. It demonstrates almost all of the grade gap only shows up in teachers subjective evaluations where behavioral criteria that describe girl behavior is rewarded. It also shows if you change the way reading is taught back to the way it was taught before boys do far BETTER than girls. In addition a Norwegian study found that when the same test is given to teachers who believe it is written by a boy they give it a 17% lesser grade than when they believe it is written by a girl. 400 teachers where tested and the researchers where women:

Women are also often given extra credits for entry to higher education while men are not. In Norway women are given extra credits, and a lot at that, for entry to 136 educations while men only get extra credits for 4. OBVIOUSLY this massively reduces the number of men in higher education. Similar practices are in palce elsewhere.

Alex

American education is based on memorizing and regurgitating information and in general just giving the kids the information. add a few generations to this teaching system, what do you expect to happen? seems like asians are used to barging in taking shit with no thought to the consequences

LJBiFed!

“American education is based on memorizing and regurgitating information and in general just giving the kids the information. ”

Education is like this in many, many countries throughout the world, including in Asia.

There just is no getting around having to commit facts and figures to memory.

Sink or swim.

Alex

but that’s all there is to it. even asain countries have the kids more involved in what they get taught. they’re trying to make kids into drones over here

LJBiFed!

Alex, the American system is much more touchy-feely-hands-on-my-kid-is-a-creative-genious-damnit than the systems I’ve been involved with in South Asia.

Americans are spoiled and make excuses. I’m sorry but it has to be said.

Alex

where have you seen this? most of what i’ve seen is “sit down take notes and then tell me what you’ve ‘learned'”. not a lot of room for creativity

Being Indian, I can answer the question of south Asians doing well in tth school system. Both boys and girls are told at a very young age to work hard , be obedient and spend hours studying.
As a mother of 2 young boys, both of whom can’t sit still for more than 5 mins( unless we give them an ipad) i feel sorry for the little boys in indian curriculum who can write their names by age 3.
Please read battle hymn of a tiger mother to try and understand what happens in asian families ( which still are largely 2 parent families but again , rapidly changing due to adoption of western social mores ) where young children are pressured to conform to obedience via physical abuse and plentiful verbal abuse by both teachers and parents- and you will understand why they do well in a school system that rewards obedience and conformity.
If you google the suicide rates among indian students, you will understand what this ridiculous pressure does to them. Yippee they one a few spelling bees in school- that does not mean they are thriving.

wtfwtf13

As yet standards have not been dumbed down to suit or ‘encourage’ girls,though there are trends that suggest that they want to emulate the Western model, in which case expect the same disastrous results. But then people don’t learn from history.
Competition and pressure are inevitable, it’s the parents’ task to get them used to this reality and strengthen them for battles ahead of them.
Remember real talented people succeed despite the system not because of it.
Basic learning skills by their very nature involves a lot of copycatting and memorizing. Unless you are a Newton or a Einstein, everyone[practically everyone!] has to go through that drill.

Unless you prefer living in the jungles conformity and obedience per se is not bad . Of course like other things in life too much/too little of it is too bad.
A true mature individual doesn’t have a one size fits all attitude to life he will be wise enough to know when he has to conform and obey and when to be independent and rebellious.
The greatest gift parents can give their children is to purge them of their brattiness

LJBiFed!

Supriya, not all South Asian families abuse their kids to get good grades and test results. Many just place a strong emphasis on education in their family culture, which generally speaking middle class and lower white, black and Hispanic do not. At least not anywhere near the degree that even the “moderate” Asian families do.

Rather they want to blame the teachers, the system, feminism, etc, etc.

@ LJBiFed ! BINGO ! The fact that most of these are two parent families plays a no mean role.

LJBiFed!

Two parent families that discipline their children and teach them to respect their elders, including teachers. Contrast this with all the “manosphere” blogs out there teaching kids to disrespect their teachers and the school system.

Does it make sense to teach your kids to disrespect a place he or she will be spending 40 hours at per week?

Now I know why so many American kids are addicted to prescriptions drugs.

JB, I’m far too new commenting here in your house (though experienced elsewhere 🙂 ) to make a call like that. Your house, your call. I’m a professional BS wrangler, so no problem for me. I suspect troll base on the number of replies she’s made to various posts, but a true troll refuses to engage in actual debate, constantly changes the goal posts, and tries to move the topic to their ground. Haven’t read enough of LJBF to get that sense, even if Yohami has.

I asked for one manosphere blog. You provided a single post, and not just that, but basically just the headline. One post’s headline by which to label the entire manosphere. Yohami is right, you’re just a troll…

I pretty much read the Jezebel article as “Stop talking about issues affecting men because …they don’t exist and something, something patriarchy so shut up otherwise we will get angry with you.”
Yeah. Even when feminists try reaching out to men they still can’t resist shaming tactics.
Good demolition job on this edifice of dogshit, judgybitch.

“Stop talking about issues affecting men because …they don’t exist and something, something patriarchy so shut up otherwise we will get angry with you.”

Perfect.

Fucking hell. That would have taken a lot less time and says pretty much the same thing as this 5000 word screed.

I should run this shit by you first.

sqt

Nah, I love your screeds. It’s why I come here. I’m late to the party today- but this whole thing is brilliant. Now I just need to finish reading the comments…

Mark

Why is it that when a man does something wrong to a woman, it’s part of a ‘systemic oppression of women,’ but when a woman does something wrong to a man, it’s just an individual woman who ‘has a right not to like a particular man?’ How can someone be so oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

And of course, the author of this article apparently doesn’t understand that there is a difference between saying a problem exists and doing something about. She mentions about a dozen problem men face (some of which dwarf the problems women as a class face in severity), says ‘we don’t want this,’ but mentions nothing an feminist has ever done about it; and proceeds to slander the only people who are doing anything about; even as feminists actively support the perpetuation of every single men’s issue she cites. Every. Single. One. The oppose stimulus money for those dangerous male-only jobs and blacklist, promote the disparity in health spending that perpetuates the life-expectancy gender gap, they oppose every attempt to reform the family court system while supporting the incentivizing of single-mother families; consistently devalue the value of men in their characterization of war and violence as primarily victimizing women.

Feminists at the very least support the perpetuation of damn near every single problem men as a class unfairly endure today, and they are the primary cause of many of them.

She and her ilk are the apotheosis of an own-group preference ideology obsessively defending its territory and its privilege.

And for the love of God, would one of these indolent bitches just once actually give real, tangible evidence to ‘male privilege’ just once. Just once. Show me what it gets me! You’d think one was asking them to define the word ‘is’ by asking them to actually articulate the basis of their entire ideology. Could it be because it doesn’t really exist?

/rant. Sometimes I just can’t control myself.

lancelot

Please tell me this is getting posted on AVfM. What a beautifully constructed piece. Putting your thoughts (and linking to studies, articles, and scholarship to support those thoughts… What a novel concept!) alongside an article of pure reactionary emoting really illustrates how bankrupt and anxious the contemporary feminist position is.

Its really just a matter of behaving respectfully toward the teacher and classmates, participating in class, doing your homework and studying the material for tests.

There are plenty of students, including boys, who are capable of doing this and scoring well, if not in the highest percentile on tests, and getting good grades, even if they all are not As.

My own experience is that non-Asian American parents in the low income to middle-middle classes make a lot of excuses, not just for their kids, but for themselves.

The parents and kids are doing much the same things: playing video games, watching porn, dating or trying to get laid, etc, etc, etc.

Sherlock

Why are you not able to digest the fact that the studies I linked to show that most of the grade gap is simply caused by boys not being given the grades they deserve? Numerous studies now show that boys do about as well as girls when graded by someone that does not know their gender. A Norwegian study found boys are graded 17% lower than girls when they deliver the exact same test. Boys ARE learning, they are just not given the grades they deserve. In addition to that the way they are taught is not well suited to teaching boys and boys are treated unfairly in many ways and emasculated by teachers but still, they learn about as well as girls they are just not given the grades.

Z

“Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something.”

I think this woman probably NEEDS birds to help her get dressed… or something. Hard to imagine how she manages it on her own.

When she said that it made me think of The Smurfs. Then I started wondering if she’d feel oppressed in a smurfy world since I think Smurfette was the only female there, and Papa Smurf (a male) was the boss.

Xayadvara

wow wow wow wow WOW – I am impressed, I really liked this investigative Journalism style. I just noticed from rationalmale 2-3 days ago your post, followed it & liked a lot of things – well there are definitely 3-4 items I am in the opposite camp w.r.t your views but on the whole I liked it. Being a man I honestly didn’t expect any support from women… I now understand how myopic my thoughts were…

Actually you remind me of a dear family friend of ours, she is a housewife too. She is from the northern districts of our state. I am Indian & in our state (differences state-wise can be compared to the differences nation-wise of Europe) the northern districts are much more group-oriented & have a much higher sense of honor & stuff while the southern districts, though centres of power, are much more self-aborbed – I am from the middle district 😉 . So no surprise for the north to be highly socialist in their approach. Coming from a left-leaning family, my uncles are the heads of the labour unions of their towns and we once visited her place. My uncle did put in a few remarks as their place was a sort of hotbed at that time in the left spheres & he was quite taken aback by her own incisive analysis and views of the political atmosphere (he didn’t expect that from the “housewife” haha, and was impressed). Later on we realised that this was the case throughout that area, most of them are always involved, stick up for each other & so politicians tread carefully with them. So your words & style helped me fondly remember her & her daughter, thank you for that.

It is never good to start off by telling someone that you know more about the causes of their bad experiences than they do. It is really not a good thing to do if you are not part of that group. It is a truly terrible thing to do if your group has a history of marginalizing the other group. It is downright offensive to accuse someone of being the cause of their own misery.

I clicked and it says,
“The bill seeks to reduce the amount of welfare benefits that low-income women receive based on how many kids they have while covered under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program. For some crazy reason (perhaps limited access to affordable contraception?), low-income women have more children, and lawmakers — four Republicans and one Democrat in this case — want to stop giving them money. ”

Limited access to affordable contraception?

How about the “no glove, no love rule”? And believe me, if your man wants love bad enough, he’ll bring the glove!
Or how about ABSTINENCE?

See, THIS is another reason why Asian-American boys do better in school.
They are 9 times out of 10, if not 10 out of 10, NOT the offspring of single “baby mamas”.

Kai

OFFTOPIC to JB:
Especially now that your posts are getting so many comments, the commenting system is extremely difficult to navigate in a chronological order.The new posts appear on top, but then newer posts to them appear underneath, but sometimes on top of the older replies…
I find myself having to scroll up and down, and often when replies get long I can’t figure out what is to what at all.
It’s possible I’m the only one who has trouble with this, but it seems that a top-down situation in which everything new just adds to the bottom would be *much* easier to read and reply.

Kai, I think basically it works like this:
NEW comments (*unrelated* to any other comment) go on top. This gives new comments clear visibility – instead of always having the very first (oldest) comment forever stuck in first place.
REPLIES to a comment, however, go under the related comment in traditional first->last order.

The fact that you even wrote this article means that the voices are beginning to penetrate. You hear us. And you’re afraid. Good. You should be. We’re coming. And we don’t care if you like it.

Yes, thank you. Absolutely excellent post. Where have you been all my life?

I call the current “wave” of feminism Feminism 4.0. All the argument assumes that society hasn’t been influenced by feminism and men are still the same as they were in the 60s. Mad Men appears to be the template.

Of course, feminist–and West’s–arguments are all absolutely reliant on the apex fallacy. Pointing to high-end examples where women aren’t represented or where men who are successful because they view the world with realism and logic are made to represent all men. West’s article is an attempt to acknowledge and then dismiss the fact that today’s feminism is apex fallacy writ large.

Fourth Wave Feminism isn’t about equal rights; that idea was jettisoned long ago. Modern feminism is all about what I call “rights without responsibilities.” Or, not so much about equal rights as it is about equal outcomes. If women don’t choose to do what is necessary to make it to the top of their profession, or to make it to that corporate board, then to make things “equal,” they need to be just “given” those positions. Because Patriarchy!

In that fourth section, about divorce and custody laws, rape, and domestic violence, she’s just outright lying.

Feminism’s current answer to all problems is that men must become women. Then everything will be rainbows and unicorns. But until then, women must be given access to all “men’s spaces” but men (and this is the argument against transmen) must be excluded from “women only spaces” so that women will feel “safe.”

But the backlash against bullshit is building. And no, we won’t go away and don’t care whether you like us or not.

Judgybitch, you are one of my new heroes–or “patriarchically,”–heroines. If you’re ever in NYC, I owe you a drink or three…

Just what kind of guy to you think I am, JB, that you can just have your way with me. Don’t make me insist on a chaperone.

And of course I’m picking up the check. I’m a man, am I not?

LJBiFed!

Lost Sailor, “Fourth Wave Feminism isn’t about equal rights…”

I don’t think we’re quite at 4th Wave just yet, but you are correct that it won’t be about equal rights but about something much more sublime;

“What makes fourth wave feminism different, in my view, is the connection to feminine spirituality. While all women might not be on board with this, there is certainly a growing trend toward recognizing the Divine Feminine and the Goddess as representatives of the spiritual nature of women. With God the Father at the helm for 2,000 plus years, many women have lost their connection to their divine feminine nature. (Men too.) Without this spiritual connection to the feminine, it’s hard to really value yourself at the same level as men since everything is skewed toward the divine masculine and masculine qualities….

…The good news is that this is changing with groups like The Goddess Collective, Feminine Power and The Yin Project. Women are coming together to reconnect with their spiritual selves in ways that are different from what you might find in a church or synagogue (and let’s remember that women are not even allowed into some mosques). This, in effect, is giving women an inner authority and trust in themselves and their power. Instead of looking outside to Father God for acceptance and permission, women are looking inside to their own feminine nature for authority and guidance.”

Well, that’s one way to look at what’s coming, but I don’t think tackling religion to change the focus from a “masculine god” to a “feminine” god is going to be it. And, really, why bother? As bloggers like Dalrock and SunshineMary have been chronicling, feminism is already doing a great job in feminizing the Christian church.

If Second Wave Feminism was focused on “equal rights” (the Equal Rights Amendment, forcing themselves into male-only spaces, Title IX, etc.), Third Wave broadened the movement to be more inclusive of other “marginalized” minorities and branched from Women’s Studies to Gender Studies.

I see the Third Wave metastasizing our from gender studies, the natural outgrowth is the emerging idea that to achieve “equality,” it’s not women that must change, but men. Masculinity must be redefined and internalized by society to force men to become women. This will supposedly bring about a utopia without violence or war and harmony between the sexes because we’ll all essentially be women. That’s why I call it rights without responsibilities. All the onus is on men. Another way of putting it is that women have rights, men have obligations.

We’re already seeing the early stages of the process with the drugging of boys in school to get them to act and learn more like girls and the whole “rape culture” meme. It’s only going to get worse.

The good news is that we’re also seeing an emerging resistance in the Manosphere, which I believe is a direct reaction to emerging Fourth Wave Feminism.

LJBiFed!

Lost Sailor,
“Well, that’s one way to look at what’s coming, but I don’t think tackling religion to change the focus from a “masculine god” to a “feminine” god is going to be it. And, really, why bother? As bloggers like Dalrock and SunshineMary have been chronicling, feminism is already doing a great job in feminizing the Christian church.”

It has nothing to do with “the Church”. The author of the piece is speaking about the pre-Abrahamic traditions, which are being revived, as well as the still thriving non-Abrahamic traditions which are increasingly gaining new Western membership such as Hinduism and others.

I didn’t say the piece had anything to do with the church. There’s always been a part of the feminist movement that has been trying to paganize feminism by largely inventing a pre-civilization “goddess” theory of pre-historic matriarchal society that was somehow destroyed by men inventing “patriarchy.” Others take a more new-agey approach.

My point was that none of these efforts are likely to gain widespread support, since more traditional religions are being feminized…

LJBiFed!

“There’s always been a part of the feminist movement that has been trying to paganize feminism by largely inventing a pre-civilization “goddess” theory of pre-historic matriarchal society that was somehow destroyed by men inventing “patriarchy.” Others take a more new-agey approach. ”

And then there’s the real world, where Hindu and other ancient civilizations had goddesses and gods as divine archetypes that human men and women modeled themselves after. Some of these civilzations are still thriving today, and in Hindu culture’s case, spreading globally through Westerners taking up various practices. Same goes for Buddhism.

From the changes I’ve seen in the past 20 years here, I expect our nation to be almost completely Asianized in metaphysical thought within another 50 years.

Don’t know where “here” is for you LJB, but I don’t see the U.S. being “Asianized in metaphysical thought” in 50 years or 100 years. Nor do I see any evidence of a global expansion of Hindu culture or religion. And Buddhism has goddess archetypes? Who knew? And how this applies to the fourth wave of feminism, I haven’t the foggiest idea…

LJBiFed!

Here for me right now is the US. And as someone who is in the thick of the yoga scene here, it has grown exponentially in the past 2 decades. And I’m not just talking about numbers. Whereas yoga centers used to teach exclusively physical yoga as exercise much like gyms did and still do, almost every yoga center now is a little Vedanta center.

Try volunteering a mere 2 decades ago to give an intro course on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, or more intense yet, the Vedanta Sutra, and you were met with blank eyes (unless in California or New York). Now? They can’t book you fast enough!

While somewhat new agey this article speaks to the shift in consciousness which has opened the doors wide to the acceptance and practice of traditional Eastern philosophies;

Yoga? Really? You think that people are internalizing the philosophy rather than just accepting it as a part of the exercise? There’s a fine line between hopeful and delusional. You may have crossed it.

Buddhism has no male or female archetypes. It should be a natural for feminism because Buddhism is ungendered, but it’s largely not, because being ungendered, it conflicts with the core goals of feminism…

Ayurvedic Yogi

I’m an Ayurvedic practitioner (its a sister science to Yoga based on Sankhya philosophy) and from where I stand I can speak for the definite increase in interest in all these areas. Even compared to just 10 years ago. There’s been a steady rise in interest in the Eastern mind sciences since the 60s but especially the last 20 years has seen it sky rocket. There are of course those who practice just asana (the physical exercise part of yoga) but the pranayama, dhyana and Vedanta/Sutra classes LJBiF mentioned above are supplemental to the exercise and thus taught separately and also charged for separately so those that want it have to seek it out and pay for it, and that’s what they are doing, in droves, while those interested only in the exercise don’t sign up for those classes.

Plus you’ve got the whole Kirtan phenomena that’s sweeping the country now, with Krishna Das being nominated at the Grammy’s. Of course if you are not into the scene at all then you might be oblivious to what’s going on, as I am oblivious for example as to the changes taking place in the national and global Christian scene, but those of us in this field definitely see the changes. When I first started out in my field I was hardly able to make pocket change and now I can support my family fully. I’m basically getting paid for teaching straight up Hinduism and even “converting” people, for a lack of a better word.

I’m pagan. You New Agers and your bullshit fad religion are the reason people think pagans are psychos. You make Aristotle look like a freak by association.Take your crystals and your white light and jam them firmly where the sun don’t shine.

You don’t know anything about religion despite being immersed in it 24/7. You are a conformist idiot who likes the sound of their own voice pronouncing foreign-sounding words because you think it makes you sound enlightened.You idiots will be dragged screaming into the Great Beyond by Father Death without ever having had an original or truly transcendental thought on ANYTHING.

Eastern spirituality,my ass. You’re no closer to any god OR goddess than Jim Jones was,you’re a fake ass pop religion-peddling huckster,a FRAUD,and yoga isn’t even valuable as A PHYSICAL EXERCISE,let alone as a pathway to spiritual enlightenment.

And speaking of conformist idiots:

“…to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that’s where we’re at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.”

And why are you supposedly “correcting” these “inequalities”? To personally benefit in some manner,perhaps? It’d be pretty stupid to rule the idea out, you are in fact a woman,aren’t you?

Isn’t this,I don’t know, kind of a self-serving thing to do?

The whole screed smacks of contradictory word-pasta and self-serving crap. What it most resembles to me is womansplaining. Basically, “Here’s a list of reasons why you’re wrong and stupid,after you get done reading it, do what we do, or we’ll call you a bigot some more”. For every term in the feminist lexicon of things that men supposedly do, you will find a corollary in some real action routinely performed by feminists. This makes sense, since the entirety of feminism is essentially women complaining about something they view as a “masculine” trait (I have no idea where they come up with these ideas,there must be like woman goggles that reinterpret things that men do like 3 or 4 times between her eyes and her brain,because this convoluted nonsense is completely alien,and childish,to my male mind.) and then adopting that trait themselves.For example, they lay all violence in the world at men’s feet, then they promote “strong,empowered,successful” ass-kicking female archetypes to little girls in order to ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE aggression in them.

In their later screeds on men’s violent and aggressive natures,we see no mention of the 400% or so rise in female violence over the last 20 years.They cover the facts up,or consciously omit and CONTINUE insisting that violence is a part of “masculinity” and so “masculinity” needs to be fixed.These crazy feminist bitches can’t even correctly understand what masculinity IS, allowing them to tinker with it would be like allowing your 4 year old a crack at your computer’s hard drive to fix a problem with THAT.

Ayurvedic Yogi

“You New Agers and your bullshit fad religion are the reason people think pagans are psychos.”

Neither new ager nor pagan.
Traditional orthodox Hindu here.
I see neo-pagans as confused people who are piecing together bits from various lost traditions while having no intact, continuous lineage to speak of.
At least the westerners who take up Hinduism or Buddhism are connecting with full traditions that have been passed down through authentic lineages intact til date.

Homeless Ronin

Basically, women are jumping from atheistic feminism to religious feminism, since feminists also promote paganism as a way to wipe out western values. If you’re not following western or christian values, leftists won’t pester you.

Doug Spoonwood

I think what these people have missed about the God the Father concept comes as that even though God was masculine, even after banishing all other masculine figures from deity status as monotheism did, there still existed an Evil One or some sort of evil force which also was masculine. If these people also have some sort of Satan which is also feminine, then there ideology might merit more consideration. Until then, it’s simply unbalanced and will tend to portray women as goddesses and make men into, at least mostly, devils.

Nah. You should call it ifem. Just like with apple products, people are starting to realise that flashy marketing does not a good product make. The ability to have one’s voice heard, creates equality, not slavish obedience to a single format, hmm, ideology. There is something out there called mandroid (humandroid, android?) which is open(sourced) to all. The problem is once the majority start using it, ifems no longer have control of the apps, umm, narrative.

LostSailor, have you ever tried scotch matured, at least for some of the time, in bourbon barrels? It adds a whole new dimension to the scotch experience.

Actually, Adman, my understanding was that most, if not all, Scotch was aged in used Bourbon barrels (to legally be labeled Bourbon, the raw whiskey must be aged in new, flame-charred oak barrels). The used Bourbon barrels are routinely shipped to Scotland and Ireland to be used repeatedly for aging Scotch and Irish Whisky. So, yeah, I’ve had such Scotch… 🙂

beansmcgrady

Actually, it is more common for Irish whiskey to be aged in bourbon barrels. Scotch was originally aged in sherry casks, but now it is common to see a variety, port, Madeira etc. I Have actually never heard of a scotch aged in bourbon barrels, but sounds good to me. Really though, a die-hard bourbon fan probably won’t wind up making the switch. I like scotches and Irish, and can really only tolerate a handful of bourbons, just a style thing.

Sherlock

I think the tendencies we are starting to see now is feminism moving towards female superiority instead of equality. McMaster universities article about women being superior in business for example and Hannah Rosin and others pointing to mens bad performance and saying that maybe women just should be on top and not equal. And this crap:

And women being given the power to throw a man in jail just based on her word and no real trial, women being given the right to have any man charged with street harassment just because she felt he was looking at her wrong, women being given the right to take away a fathers right to see his children just because she FEELS that he might be abusive to them which is what is actually becoming law in Norway although formally it is the custodial parent who has this right, a womans right to have a man removed from his home and children just based on her word that he hit her, women being given all sorts of benefit men are not given, special women only time in gyms but nothing like this for men, beaches solely for women but not for men, etc. etc.

Homeless Ronin

You forgot to mention men are drugged and lambasted since childhood for the simple fact of being born male. If women are naturally more capable, why feminism has to sabotage the education of men?

Alex

next time there is a debate with these loons, someone needs to ask how something designed to help men also hurts them and not let the event go on till the question gets answered

I really like that Jezebel has felt the need to publish a comprehensive article that not just attempts to defend “FEMinism”, but specifically trashes “HUMANism”.

To me it shows a real fear that modern “feminism” (victimhood, privilege, misandry AKA ‘patriarchy theory’) is losing power and influence as a significant consequence of more and more feminists waking up and realizing that they are really humanists after all.

Aren’t these the people who have been ranting for decades that “the personal is political”!? And now that they fear a loss off narrative control, start ranting “your personal is reason only to shut up and support MY political – not that your personal life has any political dimension but it has in my direction, but…”

Soooo…let me get this straight. If I don’t jump right in and support all their causes, they might HATE me. Really? Is that all they got? They may “hate” me. Seriously. Go ahead. No, I mean it. Hate me. Hate me all you want. Hate hate hate. And enjoy your hate. Really, enjoy hating me. I want you feminists to live your entire lives hating me. Unless they start picking up weapons, this is nothing to me.

It’s incredibly narcissistic of them to assume I would even care.

Retrenched

I wonder what this new “hatred” from feminists would look like, since apparently calling men “creeps”, “harassers”, “privileged”, “oppressors”, “pigs”, “abusers” and “potential rapists” doesn’t count as “hate” in Lindy’s book.

This is how I view it. Women are capeable, and intelligent humans. Women WOULD have done all that. But oh wait? The Men were already doing it. And as men are capeable intelligent humans, the men we’re already doing a good job. Why fix what is broken?
The entire past history of humanity wasn’t a well planned out conspiracy by men… Things just happen becasue they happen.

Sanguifer

“But they will question your masculinity and declare a “creepy” factor should you happen to like My Little Pony.”, You say.

I’m sorry, but I really couldn’t find anything about that in the linked article. It might have been in a slightly condescending tone (though I’m still not sure if that’s the actual tone, or my expectations or how the tone SHOULD be), but it’s surprisingly positive.

The article stated that the show was intended for little girls – it was – and the “creepy factor” was actually brought in by Lauren Faust, who was quoted there – because undeniably, as she said, many people (both male and female) find young males with an extraordinary interest in a field specifically designed to appeal to little girls… suspect, to say the least. (And I do, as a side note, think that it might be just a rather healthy dose of scepticism. And I say that as a brony myself.) Indeed, the writer actually stated that from her experience, Bronies manage to NOT be seen as creeps more often than one would assume by just examining the matter at hand and cranking up the prejudice to 11.

As for questioning the masculinity of bronies, well, I haven’t found a mention of that in the article. At all. Not a lot of it in the top comments, either. And from my personal experience, it’s the fellow men who are more likely to go “WTF dude, ponies? Really?”. The only criticism I ever heard from a female on that issue was from my girlfriend, who merely said that, paraphrasing, she might’ve watched the show if someone would occasionally get decapitated or something, but that as it is it’s just too much sugary cuteness to bear for her.

So yeah, um… You might want to edit that? Or at least take a second look at it? Just because it’s on Jezebel doesn’t mean it’s bigoted or misandric by default.

It’s so sad, the destruction of their natural habitat. Ten years ago, they’d have been wearing oversized pacifiers and stroking each other’s earlobes. Now they glue cocks on their heads and meet up in Secaucus? Tragic.

Apparently, you’re much more generous than I am. I took the above comment to be a little … emasculating.

Sanguifer

As I said, not _a lot_ of it. I try to remember we’re still on the internet here, for one – trollish, hateful or ridiculing comments are likely to be everywhere -, and that it is the society as a whole that still has this rather rigid idea of what should be considered “manly” and what should not (and frankly, it’s hardly feminism’s fault). The person who issued that comment clearly thinks the fandom to be ridiculous and the participation of adult men shameful, but eh. He’s entitled to his own prejudice.

I just don’t find it very fair to quote an article that was surprisingly positive on what is an extremely easy-to-flame group and tie in a commenter’s attitude to the article, or the site itself. I can imagine You would be irritated at the very least if someone tried to do the same here (I am not a frequent enough follower of this blog, but I imagine You also get the occasional commenter whose views You do not identify with and didn’t support in the related entry).

In fact, I think it’s fundamentally similar to feminists who take internet trolls making, ahem, “rape threats” as fodder to fuel their rape-culture rhetoric. We all know those “I receive rape threats every day!” kind of posts, and how ridiculous it is. Same here: Someone in the comment section ridiculed men who like MLP. Tieing that to the whole community is like taking obvious flamebait as proof that all men are rapists and concluding a systemic problem.

As an aside, though, I’d like to stress that the fact that this is the only thing I noticed which I disagreed with strongly enough to comment on it means I pretty much agree on everything else.

Sanguifer

“I just don’t find it very fair to quote an article that was surprisingly…”

I’m sorry, that was supposed to be “to link to an article” instead of “to quote an article”. My bad.

“Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.”

This is the part I found most comical. This from the feminists that told me at 5 years of age that I would become a rapist and wifebasher because I was male and ALL men were this, through the popular media. Yes that was a long time ago but if memory serves me correctly an ad campaign in some western country just a few years ago did exactly this same thing using images of young boys and girls! I think I prefer the version I got at 5 years of age, repulsive and untrue as it was.

Hate me all you want feminists for I knew at 5 years of age what you thought of me and in the 30 years since there is absolutely no love to be lost. In fact if anything you’ve lost even more ground with me! I wouldn’t have thought this was possible but you lot (i cant bear to call them ladies it catches in my throat even typing it lol) have managed it. You are truly talented in your abilities to alienate the male half of the worlds population.

For years it was the #whataboutthemenz and anything men faced was just a big joke. In fact even more so they loudly and proudly have declared where they have hurt men. However now magically they were just about to fix mens problems now that suddenly there is a major backlash at the completely unreasonable treatment men have suffered at their hands for 50 long years. IE the whole lives of most of the men on this planet. Now that they’ve been caught out its “oh we were just about to do something about that but you menz have spoilt it again now take another 50 years of beating like a man and enjoy the already 50 year old shaming sammich weve been feeding you.” Kind of reminds me of the oldest excuse in the book really. Oh I was just about to call you (when youve run into them in public after not calling.) Oh I was going to do my homework but I left it to last thing and fell asleep. Poor, poor excuses and when they come from a group that has done nothing but lie and fabricate statistics with a monopoly on public discourse and all the power in the world, it would take a real moron to believe them.

Hate me all you want feminists, it couldnt hold a candle to the loathing and contempt the men you have pushed into silence for the last 50 years have for you. Im very much amongst those men and I hate feminists more than they could ever hate me.

Brigadon

What I find interesting is that avowed feminists are now actually addressing… and lying about, might I add, issues that MRA’s have been mentioning. Five years ago they never even bothered addressing legitimate issues brought up by MRA’s, and never even bothered to lie about them. All they did was pound their pulpits and repeat the same tired crap.

This shows me that they are starting to get scared. The More scared they get, the more they are going to attack legitimate issues with easily-disproved lies. The more they hate men and prove it every day, and the more they wake up men and women with their transparently ogrish support of female supremacy.

We are winning. It’s time to turn up the pressure and start taking feminists and especially ‘male feminists’ to task for all the pain and abuse that they have been causing women over the years by their political use of feminism as a weapon against both men and women.

Politicians and hay-makers have been using feminism as the vehicle to rip profits from men to finance only themselves, and in the process tearing apart families, and terrify women and convince them that their husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers are monsters that want to do nothing more than rape them and lock them in the basement, forcing out baby after baby until they die of internal hemorrhaging. They Make laws that encourage women to divorce men in order to get ‘free stuff’, or accuse men falsely of rape to get ‘free stuff’, thus creating more ‘victims’ and fuelling the profit stream of guilty apologists and tax-expanding public assistance for newly-minted ‘victims’. These political animals claim to be feminists, but they are really simply greedy manipulators showing a false flag with a pretty title to hide the increasing burden they are placing on everyone to finance themselves.

Feminism does nothing more than teach women to be terrified victims, men to be false, self-hating monsters, and strip money from hard-working men and women to fuel their increasingly hungry political money machine.

Ladies and gentlemen of power, remember what happened to King Louis XVI in 1793. You are neither as invisible nor as powerful as you think you are. Your policy of inciting race and sex hatred in order to distract us from the global power machine you are building has been noted.

Lovekraft

I agree with you – that feminism has to be held to account, lest it returns. And from what I have observed in the manosphere, unless there is a monumental purge amongst the major MHRA activists, feminism will not be getting a free pass.

Lovekraft

The reason feminism will never really catch on is that it has lies and emotion as its lynchpins.

Men recoil at squishy feeeeelings. Men want accountability and fairness, and scoff at references to patriarchies and privilege.

In the real world, we want to keep our home safe and our workplace sustainable. Thus the desire to reject childish feminist claims. Work has turned away from producing something with our own hands into an abstract – shifting numbers around.

On so many different levels, feminism is loaded with contradictions, falsehoods, and narcissistic expressions of hatred towards men.
The philosophy of “complete equality” between the sexes is inherently flawed if not ridiculous. Men and women aren’t completely the same and aren’t totally interchangeable all of the time. Unfortunately, many feminists and their supporters don’t believe this reality and would shame me for even suggesting this. In their eyes I’m a bigot or a “dinosaur”. They think I’m trying to stop progress.
To make matters worse, in the name of satisfying this mentality, liberals are doing all they can to impose a false sense of accomplishment upon us by forcing women into rolls they haven’t traditionally held.
Understand, I have no issue with women doing anything they want to if they can. I have personally benefited greatly by professional women in my life as far back as I can remember. I have nothing but the greatest respect for them.
But there comes a point where the movement needs to be redefined. I see no benefit in pandering to angry women (or men) whose vision of justice is more about their own personal self interest with no regard to social norms.
This is my problem with feminism. I think it is now doing more damage than good in some areas. I know we need to be mindful of discrimination and fight it when we can, but we shouldn’t live in a fantasy world either.
Better and more levelheaded leadership is needed in the feminist movement for a more rational expression of it’s philosophy.

Feminists totally care about men’s issues and will work with men on those issues ON THE CONDITION that we all agree with them that patriarchy (aka MEN) is the reason those issues exist.

Homeless Ronin

“Please stop turning us against you.”

I believe Heinrich Himmler said something like that about the jews…

JBfan

Fleetches & flootches? Wow Lindy, you’ve relly embarrassed yourself this time! (Retard levels through the roof on this one!) And no, every word you have uttered is a lie so sit on it, sweetie pie, your movement had Hugo Schwyzer and Kyle Payne! XD

JBfan

And also, Misandry in the feminist movement has translated into hatred for, discrimination and even oppression of transgender people. Bravo feminism, you disgust me.

kyle

well, on;y male transgenders…. wait what?

chris

i’m trying to understand your argument but theres just one thing i cant understand… first you say ” That is why the Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. Because they are qualified to do so.” and you also say “That’s not sexism. It’s biology. And evolution.” so what i get from these comments is that women are less qualified for certain jobs, not only on a physical level but also on a intellectual level as well? if so why should women even try for these jobs right?? but then you say women don’t get certain jobs because they don’t want them but why would they try if they are less qualified right… if you can explain this more to me that would be great. thanks

I have to say, I found this article randomly on a Google search, and I did not expect a blog post such as this to be so engaging,

You Mrs. Judgy Bitch are awesome. It’s nice to see somebody who understands these issues, especially when it’s someone who dishes it out to the opposing side with such a logical force to be reckoned with.

I’m so glad the weekend is here. I’ll have time to explore this archive of greatness you have established. 🙂

What a well written piece. I did not know there were other women who thought as I do. I found out through a game journal (I forget which one) article a few weeks ago on MRA’s and the Honey Badgers. I was thrilled. I look forward to reading more of your pieces. Great work.

Jack Strawb

West: Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It’s not misandry, it’s mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law,…

I didn’t know it was possible to be as full of shit as Lindy West is.

I’ve gotten on well with women all my life, and there have been many I’ve adored, and even loved. I get a kick out of women finding me attractive as they occasionally do while I’m about my business. I like the reverse, as well. From small interactions to longstanding love affairs, many women are marvelous.

But disenfranchisement of men, of fathers, contra West, is indeed built into law. The law allowed the one sociopathic woman I had the misfortune to meet to stalk me for three decades. It’s built into law and into the imbalance between men and women in reproductive rights. It makes blackmail, assault, and hostage taking something a sociopathic woman able to deceive for just a few months can readily do. The law as written exposes men to this, leaves them with little ability to defend themselves–in fact, it actively takes away their ability to defend themselves–and it’s just horrible.

Becca

I know this is an older post, but I have to comment.

First, I love your work JB. I don’t always agree with you, but that’s also one of the things I like the most about you. I can disagree on certain things and still like you whereas, with most feminists I’ve spoken to, I cannot.

Second, getting back to the post. I nearly flipped my lid when she began talking about the men’s rights feminism is working on. I can’t be the only one who noticed that, even when talking about men, she can’t not make it all about women. Feminists don’t want men to lose their children because it means people believed women are natural caregivers? It is utterly impossible for her to even think of working for men’s rights for the sake of men alone. It amazes me that she can not care that there are men out there being kept away from their own flesh and blood and children being torn from their fathers and actually talk about wanting to be a humanist or as if she is, on some level a humanist. The hypocrisy and selfishness is just unbelievable to me.

Anyway, I know I’m late to the party, but I had to say something. Keep up the good work! 🙂